R.Sundar Vs The Sub Inspector of Police on 12 Oct 2023

Posted on February 7, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Madurai bench of Madras High Court held that, the court can recall NBW without insisting upon the presence of the accused.

From Para 6,

6.On hearing both, it is clear that the revision petitioner is Accused No.1 in C.C.No.95 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Lalgudi. Already NBW is pending against Accused No.2 from the year 2013. NBW was also pending against Accused No.3, who filed the petition to recall NBW and the same was allowed on 12.09.2023. Admittedly the petitioner was directed to appear for hearing, but he filed the petition for dispense of his presence. On perusal of decision of this Court relied on by the petitioner, there is no wrong the presence of an accused for any effective hearing. On perusal of impugned order, there is nothing mentioned about any of effective hearing. Further, in the absence co-accused, no effective hearing can be made in the main case. This Court already held that while recalling NBW appearance of accused need not be insisted upon. At the same time, the accused has to be present when the case is posted for any effective hearing. In this case, when NBWs are pending against co-accused there would not be any effective hearing. However, it is stated that the petitioner has not been appearing before the Trial Court for several years, in such circumstance, there is nothing wrong in passing order for his appearance. In the above circumstances, this Court is inclined to allow this Criminal Revision Case with conditions by setting aside the impugned order.

R.Sundar Vs The Sub Inspector of Police on 12 Oct 2023

Index of NBW judgments here.

S.Sundar Vs State of Tamilnadu on 02 Mar 2016

Posted on February 7, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Madras High Court held that, the court can recall NBW without insisting upon the presence of the accused.

From paras 7-9,

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in this branch of law, there is march of law. Earlier, there used to be not entertaining such recall petitions when the accused was not present in the court. This conception of compulsion of the presence of accused has been departed because
of change in the judicial thinking. The fact that the accused, who is stated to have eluded has since engaged a counsel and wanted to participate in the criminal proceedings had effect on the courts.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that without insisting upon the presence of the accused, the court can recall NBW. I hasten to add that the courts can impose certain conditions, but it should not be harsh or conditions should not be to terrorise the accused. In support of his said view, the learned counsel would cite the following decisions:
(i) VALAMPURI JOHN V. PETER JAMES [1997(2) MWN (CR.) 196
(ii) VALIULLAZ SHERIF V. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, NELLORE [2000(3) MWN 28
(iii) SIRUGUDUGU NAGA VENKATA DURGAKUMARI V. SIRUGUDU JHANSILAKSHMI [(2007) 2 MLJ (Crl) 1668]
(iv) INDER MOHAN GOSWAMI AND ANOTHER V. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL AND OTHERS [(2007) 12 SCC 1]
9. Courts must protect the rights of the accused. But, atthe same time, the court has to see that the offenders are prosecuted. This legal philosophy could be seen as a currentjudicial thing [SANJAY CHANDRA VS.C.B.I [2012(1)SCC 40] also known as 2G scam case. While striking a balance between thesetwo extremes, cause of justice cannot be compromised. Now the fear of the petitioner is that as and when he shows his face, there is possibility of he being sent to jail. When he filesrecall petition, it is an indication that he will participate in the court proceedings. At the same time, there is fear ofpsychosis on the prosecution that the accused may put bottle necks in the administration of criminal justice. Now the law is very clear. Accused cannot be asked to present in court as acondition precedent to recall the NBW.

S.Sundar Vs State of Tamilnadu on 02 Mar 2016

Index of NBW judgments here.

E.Thilagavathy Vs M.Punniyamoorthi on 22 Dec 2023

Posted on January 19, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A Division bench at Madurai of Madras High Court held as follows

From Para 17,

17. Whether the wife has committed cruelty by levelling such allegation is the point for consideration. The wife is always ready and willing to live with the husband along with two children. It is the husband, who is running away from the matrimonial home without discharging his duty and responsibility as a husband. It is the specific plea of the wife as well as in her evidence that they have not even availed the facilities offered by the Southern Railway for the last 15 years. The husband has not even included the name of the wife and children in the Service Register so as to enjoy certain facilities offered by the railways to the staff of the family. This attitude of the husband assumes significance inasmuch as he never intended to lead a peaceful/joint life with the wife and children by taking care of them as a dutyful husband. In the absence of any specific plea regarding alleged desertion and in the absence of the proof with regard to desertion for continuous period of two years by the wife, without reasonable cause, the trial Court has gone and discussed in detail and treated the same as cruelty. None of the allegation that was averred by the husband as cruelty and nor proved in the manner known to law. On the contrary, the wife has clearly demonstrated before this Court through her pleadings and her evidence and by way of suggestion during the cross-examination of P.W.1-husband that the husband has not discharged his duties and he is the one, who has not come to the matrimonial home, even when the wife is willing to lead a peaceful life and therefore, we find that she has demonstrated the cruelty at the hands of the husband to the effect that he is not interested to live with the wife and children by not giving any financial assistance and has not included the wife and children in the service register in the railways so as to enjoy the facilities as a family member. These admitted facts would go to show that it is the husband, who has committed cruelty and therefore, the wife was forced to live in the house of her father. The reason assigned by the wife is found to be reasonable and acceptable.

E.Thilagavathy Vs M.Punniyamoorthi on 22 Dec 2023

Divorce judgments here.

P Amutha Vs Gunsekaran on 23 Dec 2022

Posted on December 1, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of High Court of Madras held that maintenance allowance granted to wife cannot be considered as debt as she is not a creditor.

From Para 9 (cites Bhagwant Narnawre Vs Radhika Narnawre and Ashokbhai Devsingbhai Chauhan Vs Taraben Ashokbhai Chauhan),

9. Further , some issue has been considered by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in ‘Ashokbhai Devsingbhai Chauhan /vs/ Taraben Ashokbhai Chauhan’. In that case, the Principal Family Court, Ahamedabad directed the Bank of Baroda, Science City Branch, to deduct Rs.30,000/- per month from the pension account of the husband and credit to the account of the wife towards the maintenance amount in arrears. After considering the judgments, viz., (1) Om Prakash /vs/ Javitri Devi (Manu/PH/2052/2017 : 2018(1) DMC 462), (2) Vasanthi Devi /vs/ Vijaya Bank, Ashok Nagar Branch, Mangalore, (Manu/KE/0484/1997 : 1997(2) KarLJ 351, (3) Union of India /vs/ Wing Commander R.R.Hingorani (Retd.) (MANU/SC/0572/1987 : 1987 1 SCC 551) and also considering the above said Bombay High Court judgment, finally, held Section 11 of Pension Act 1871 cannot be attracted and as a wife cannot be treated as creditor as provided under the Pension Act and upheld the order of attachment of pension passed by the Family Court for collection of pension amount.

P Amutha Vs Gunsekaran on 23 Dec 2022

Citations:

Other Sources:

Index of Maintenance Judgments under Section 125 CrPC here.

Subramanian @ Ravi Subramanian Vs State of Tamil Nadu on 20 Nov 2007

Posted on July 16, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of Madras High Court held as follows,

From Paras 4 and 5,

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by relying upon Rule 339 of the Criminal Rules of Practice submits that the petitioner being a party to S.C.No. 94/2005 is entitled to get certified copies of the documents which form part of the record of the criminal case. Rule 339 of the Criminal Rules of Practice reads as follows:
“339.Copies to be given to parties:- Copies of any portion of the record of a Criminal case must be furnished to the parties concerned on payment of the proper stamp and the authorized fee for copying…..”
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner had been granted pardon and taken as approver nonetheless he remains a party to the proceedings and as such he is entitled to get certified copies of the documents as per the above said rules. In support of the above said
contention, the learned counsel relied upon the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court reported in CDJ 2006 MHC 1600 (K.Ramaiah Vs. R.Sudhakara Naidu). In that decision referring to Rule 339 of the Criminal Rules of Practice and other decisions of this Court, the learned Judge has held that the Trial Court cannot refuse to receive the copy application and it is bound to follow Rule 339 in so far as copies are given to the parties are concerned.

Subramanian @ Ravi Subramanian Vs State of Tamil Nadu on 20 Nov 2007

The Index is here.

K.Ramaiah Vs R.Sudhakara Naidu on 04 Jul 2006

Posted on July 16, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of Madras High Court held as follows,

From Para 4,

4. Rule 339 of the Criminal Rules of Practice provides for issuance of copies to parties and it stipulates that copies of any portion of the record of a criminal case must be furnished to the parties concerned on payment of the proper stamp and the authorised fee for copying.

K.Ramaiah Vs R.Sudhakara Naidu on 04 Jul 2006 (CK Ver)

The Index is here.

Subramanian Vs State of Tamil Nadu on 15 Nov 1991

Posted on July 16, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of Madras High Court held that docket order also forms part of court record, relying on the following rule.

Rule 339 of the Criminal Rules of Practice reads as follows:

“339. Copies to be given to parties.” Copies of any portion of the record of a Criminal case must be furnished to the parties concerned on payment of the proper stamp and the authorized fee for copying.

New Rule 209 of The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019 for Tamil Nadu read as follow:

209. Application for copies by a party.— Every application for a copy of judgment or order or proceedings (including docket order) or deposition of witnesses or original document filed in or in the custody of a Court shall be presented by the applicant or his advocate and shall set out the case or proceeding number, if any, the name of the applicant, his position in the case or proceeding as the case may be, the name of the advocate, if any, and description of the proceeding or document of which a copy is required.

Subramanian Vs State of Tamil Nadu on 15 Nov 1991 (CM Ver)

The Index is here.

Manjunath Eshwar Vs State of TN on 16 Apr 2013

Posted on June 19, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of Madras High Court relied on the Supreme Court decision here.

From Para 12,

12. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner places much reliance upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2010 (1) MWN (Cr.) 39 (SC) [State of U.P. vs. Santosh Kumar] wherein Their Lordships have held as follows :-
40. Section 4 of the Dowry Act deals with penalty for demanding dowry, directly or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be. The object of Section 4 is to discourage the very demand for property or valuable security as consideration for a
marriage between the parties thereto. Section 4 prohibits the demand for ‘giving’ property or valuable security which demand, if satisfied, would constitute an offence under Section 3 read with Section 2 of the Act.
41. Thus, the ambit and scope of Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Act is different from the ambit and scope of Section 498-A, IPC.

Manjunath Eshwar Vs State of TN on 16 Apr 2013

Citations:

Other Sources:

Annadurai Vs Jaya on 21 Apr 2023

Posted on April 30, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Madras High Court held that the maintenance arrears of a deceased daughter are her property and such property is inheritable to her mother under HSA.

From Para 2, (crucial piece of fact)

2.The fact of the case is that the petitioner is the husband. The respondent is the mother-in-law of the petitioner. The petitioner married the respondent’s daughter Saraswathi in the year 1991. Due to misunderstanding, they separated. The petitioner/ husband by filing a divorce petition under Section 13 (1)(i) (b) of Hindu Marriage Act before the Sub Court, Seyyur, got a divorce decree by an order dated 20.01.2005. Thereafter, Saraswathi filed a maintenance case in M.C.No.1 of 2014 before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurantagam. After trial of the maintenance case, the learned Judge awarded a monthly maintenance of Rs.7,500/- payable by the petitioner/husband to his wife Saraswathi on 22.01.2021 and the amount was ordered to pay from the date of petition i.e. on 04.01.2014.

Continuing from same Para,

For collecting the arrears of maintenance, the wife Saraswathi filed an application in CMP.No.678 of 2021 in M.C.No.1 of 2014 before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Maduranthagam. In the petition, she claimed the arrears of maintenance amount of Rs.6,37,500/-. Pending petition, the wife
Saraswathi died on 05.06.2021. Thereafter, her mother filed CMP.No.2529 of 2021 to implead her as a petitioner and to permit her to recover the
arrears of maintenance amount of Rs.6,22,500/-. The learned Judge, after hearing both the parties, allowed the petition for impleading the mother-in-law of the petitioner as petitioner for collecting the arrears of maintenance amount of Rs.6,22,500/- on the ground that she all along acted as a
guardian to the deceased wife Saraswathi as she was mentally affected and also a legal heir to the deceased daughter. Aggrieved by this order, the
petitioner/husband filed the present criminal revision case, which is under challenge.

My Assessment:

Once the competent Court held that the divorce was granted on the ground of desertion, there is no scope of granting maintenance u/s 125 CrPC, in the view of Sec 125(4) CrPC. All this farce could have been avoided if the Petitioner herein, moves to cancel the maintenance Order, on the weight of divorce on the ground of desertion.

Annadurai Vs Jaya on 21 Apr 2023

Suyalaly and Anr Vs Alphin Jeyasingh and Ors on 29 Nov 2021

Posted on September 12, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A Single judge of Madras High Court held as follows,

From Paras 4 and 5,

4. The complaint has been filed under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners draws my attention to Section 12(5) of the Act which states that the Magistrate shall endeavour to dispose of every application made under sub-section (1) within a period of sixty days from the date of its first hearing.
5. In this case, the complaint was filed way back in the year 2019. Keeping the petition pending for more than two years is not an acceptable state of affairs. The learned trial Magistrate is directed to dispose of D.V.C.No.11 of 2019 on merits and in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Suyalaly and Anr Vs Alphin Jeyasingh and Ors on 29 Nov 2021

Other Sources:

Connects to a PIL here.

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Category: High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification

R.Sundar Vs The Sub Inspector of Police on 12 Oct 2023

S.Sundar Vs State of Tamilnadu on 02 Mar 2016

E.Thilagavathy Vs M.Punniyamoorthi on 22 Dec 2023

P Amutha Vs Gunsekaran on 23 Dec 2022

Subramanian @ Ravi Subramanian Vs State of Tamil Nadu on 20 Nov 2007

K.Ramaiah Vs R.Sudhakara Naidu on 04 Jul 2006

Subramanian Vs State of Tamil Nadu on 15 Nov 1991

Manjunath Eshwar Vs State of TN on 16 Apr 2013

Annadurai Vs Jaya on 21 Apr 2023

Suyalaly and Anr Vs Alphin Jeyasingh and Ors on 29 Nov 2021